well his rhetoric is more pro-free markets and he has experience in business, so it could translate to setting up policies that allow businesses to thrive.

I think I also read somewhere that more economist favor Mitt Romney over Obama. Not sure where though.

I think there are a lot of problems with the Obama administration, both with social and economic freedom. I can see Mitt Romney being as bad as well, especially with social freedoms. However, Obama has shown to be incompotent enough, so I don't see the benefit of allowing him another 4 years.

Basically, I'm not too enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. However, I think he's a better alternative then Obama.

Romney is an excellent candidate and I vote for him over most Democrats. Nonetheless, in the words of Mark Levin,"I'd vote for an orange juice can over President Obama.

It's easy. President Obama has no skill other than running for office. Obama tells people what they want to hear, and what voters want to hear is that there will be free cookies and ice cram forever, paid for by someone else. Reagan fixed a worse recession that this one without having a Republican Congress for a single day. Romney accomplished a lot as governor without ever having a Republican legislature.

President Obama has full control of Congress for two years and has done more harm than good.

There is good chance that there will be third party candidate you can vote for to protest. Ralph Nader is getting old, but there will be a Socialist Worker candidate or the like.

I wish the Libertarian Party was still fielding a candidate, but it removed the candidates. "The candidates running for the Libertarian nomination for president have been removed per the vote of the Libertarian National Committee."http://www.lp.org...

There is good chance that there will be third party candidate you can vote for to protest. Ralph Nader is getting old, but there will be a Socialist Worker candidate or the like.

I wish the Libertarian Party was still fielding a candidate, but it removed the candidates. "The candidates running for the Libertarian nomination for president have been removed per the vote of the Libertarian National Committee."http://www.lp.org...

Gary Johnson is trying to nab the Libertarian nomination is he not?

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

There is good chance that there will be third party candidate you can vote for to protest. Ralph Nader is getting old, but there will be a Socialist Worker candidate or the like.

I wish the Libertarian Party was still fielding a candidate, but it removed the candidates. "The candidates running for the Libertarian nomination for president have been removed per the vote of the Libertarian National Committee."http://www.lp.org...

Gary Johnson is trying to nab the Libertarian nomination is he not?

I like Gary Johnson, but we all know that those on the libertarian ticket isn't going to win. Unless the constitution or voting system is changed, the US will be a two party system.

At 5/3/2012 11:06:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:Romney is an excellent candidate and I vote for him over most Democrats. Nonetheless, in the words of Mark Levin,"I'd vote for an orange juice can over President Obama.

It's easy. President Obama has no skill other than running for office. Obama tells people what they want to hear, and what voters want to hear is that there will be free cookies and ice cram forever, paid for by someone else.

He knows the power of political language.

Reagan fixed a worse recession that this one without having a Republican Congress for a single day.

1) was not a worse recession, and 2) the Democrats comprimised with the President time and time again to help the nation, not their ideology. You Republicans should take a clue.

Romney accomplished a lot as governor without ever having a Republican legislature.

I know his state was 47th in job creation, not 50th because those states had Hurricane Katrina at the time.

I know he passed Romneycare as well.

President Obama has full control of Congress for two years and has done more harm than good.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 5/3/2012 10:34:31 PM, imabench wrote:Are people for Romney because hes not Obama? Im just asking for your pick but feel free to defend your position, I will not ridicule them, I just want to know your choice.

Of course people are only for Romney because his name is not Barack Obama. Romney is a ridiculously weak candidate.

Everyone knows, even among his supporters, that he will say and do anything to get elected. As far as I'm aware no candidate in recent American history has flip-flopped as much as he has, on such a wide range of issues. Romney inspires nobody. He is boring, robotic, and painfully awkward. Nobody's really crazy about him, not even most of his supporters - they're just resigned to the fact that Republicans must defeat Obama and therefore they all have to unite behind Romney.

While on the topic, it's obvious that Obama would destroy Romney. Obama has the incumbent's advantage. And in addition to the stuff I mentioned before, Romney has been appealing to the far right of the Republican Party for over a whole year, trying to be as conservative as possible. During the general election campaign he will have to retreat from that, because he is appealing to all of the country, not a portion of the Republican Party. This is going to screw him over - he must either backtrack and try to be moderate, in which case Obama paints him as a lying flip-flopper and brings up all the stuff Romney said during primary season. Or, Romney doesn't flip-flop, but he still uses the far right rhetoric that appeals only to a minority of the country. Either way, the guy is screwed, and it doesn't help that the Republican Party has never been less passionate/united behind a nominee, or that the nominee has nothing in their personality to inspire passion from anyone.

he Democrats comprimised with the President time and time again to help the nation, not their ideology. You Republicans should take a clue.

Obama had two years with full control, including a 60 vote Senate majority. So explain why Republicans were a problem then.

The way compromise worked before Obama was that alternative legislative proposals were drafted, then the differences were hammered out in committee. The Democrats now largely refuse to write anything down, for far they would have to run on it. The law requires that the Senate vote on a budget. The budget requires only a simple majority, so Democrats do not need any Republican support to pass it. A Democratic Senate budget would then go to a joint legislative committee to seek a compromise with the House. Democrats refuse to participate, period.

In the debt crisis negotiations last summer, Reid and Boehner reached a compromise that would have raised taxes $900 million in return or spending cuts. Obama simply refused. This was revealing a long Washington Post article recently. Boehner has been saying all along that's what happened.

Reagan also succeeded in selling programs directly to the voters, who then pressured Democrats to go along. Obama has spawned public opposition not support,

Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.

At 5/3/2012 11:06:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:Romney is an excellent candidate and I vote for him over most Democrats. Nonetheless, in the words of Mark Levin,"I'd vote for an orange juice can over President Obama.

It's easy. President Obama has no skill other than running for office. Obama tells people what they want to hear, and what voters want to hear is that there will be free cookies and ice cram forever, paid for by someone else. Reagan fixed a worse recession that this one without having a Republican Congress for a single day. Romney accomplished a lot as governor without ever having a Republican legislature.

President Obama has full control of Congress for two years and has done more harm than good.

This.

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

Voting for Romney is one thing. Voting for the coalition that Romney has backed himself into the corner of obeying utterly or finding himself impeached on something trumped up, I might be able to live with that.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

he Democrats comprimised with the President time and time again to help the nation, not their ideology. You Republicans should take a clue.

Obama had two years with full control, including a 60 vote Senate majority. So explain why Republicans were a problem then.

The way compromise worked before Obama was that alternative legislative proposals were drafted, then the differences were hammered out in committee. The Democrats now largely refuse to write anything down, for far they would have to run on it. The law requires that the Senate vote on a budget. The budget requires only a simple majority, so Democrats do not need any Republican support to pass it. A Democratic Senate budget would then go to a joint legislative committee to seek a compromise with the House. Democrats refuse to participate, period.

In the debt crisis negotiations last summer, Reid and Boehner reached a compromise that would have raised taxes $900 million in return or spending cuts. Obama simply refused. This was revealing a long Washington Post article recently. Boehner has been saying all along that's what happened.

Reagan also succeeded in selling programs directly to the voters, who then pressured Democrats to go along. Obama has spawned public opposition not support,

I see, so Democrats cannot even manage compromise within the bounds of their own Party. But it's Republicans fault for not giving blanket agreement.

Roy, I respect you more than many conservatives on DDO, but Obama has tried compromising with the GOP and the more conservative Democrats, as well as the Progressives, often coming up with solutions that are not appealing, and the creation of the Tea Party has just made things much worse.

I do agree though that the Democrats and Obama do share some of the blame for failing to pass a budget when they controlled Congress. They were bogged down over debating health care reform, with many conservative Democrats and more liberal Democrats divided, and with Obama wanting to get GOP votes on his plan, which in the end never happened. I see though that Obama understands the middle class though, which I cannot say that same of many GOP leaders.

As the Part of "NO", the GOP deserves blame for denying any real progress in America because as the GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch said, their 1# priority is to beat Obama in 2012.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 5/5/2012 11:12:56 AM, smc_gamer wrote:Earlier in the primary, I didn't much like Romney, but now he's starting to sound more conservative. I still think he needs to challenge Obama more, though, but my opinion of him has improved.

So sounding conservative is the only criteria you have? Because as far as actually being conservative, Romney is not.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln